Skip to main content

Employees’ Organizational Solidarity within Modern Organizations: A Framing Perspective on the Effects of Social Embeddedness

  • Chapter
Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior

Part of the book series: Critical Issues in Social Justice ((CISJ))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alchian, A., and Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E., and Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S. (1993). Human capital (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buskens, V. (1999). Social networks and trust. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S.G., and Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes team work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D.R., and Mishra, K. (1995). Toward a theory of organisational culture and effectiveness. Organisation Science, 6, 204–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flache, A. (1996). The double edge of networks: An analysis of the effect of informal networks on cooperation in social dilemmas. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flache, A. (2002). The rational weakness of strong ties. Failure of group solidarity in a highly cohesive group of rational agents. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 26, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flache. A (2003). Je vrienden val je niet af. [You just do not let your friends down]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 16, 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flache, A., and Macy, M.W. (1996). The weakness of strong ties: Collective action failure in a highly cohesive group. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flap, H., Bulder, B., and Volker, B. (1998). Intra-organizational networks and performance: A review. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 4, 109–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. (1997). Not just for the money. An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P.S. (1986). The impact of task and technology on group performance. In P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 120–167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (1995, May–June). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hechter, M. (1987). Principles of group solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. (1997). Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict and relations with management. Work and Occupations, 24, 426–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M.A., and Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G.C. (1974). Social behavior. Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E., and Lazear, E.P. (1992). Peer pressure in partnerships. Journal of Politica Economy 100, 801–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster, F. (2005). For the time being. Accounting for inconclusive findings concerning the effects of temporary employment relationships on solidary behavior of employees. Veenendaal: Universal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, F., Sanders, K., and Van Emmerik, H. (2003). Solidarity of temporary workers. The effects of temporal and network embeddedness on solidary behavior of Ph.D. students. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 38, 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, S.M. (1998). Solidarity: Its microfoundations and macro dependence. In. P. Doreian and T.J. Fafaro (Eds.), The problem of solidarity: Theories and models (pp. 61–112). Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of interpersonal trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., and Schmitt, M.J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S.J., and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlau, P. (2000). The governance of the employment relationship. A relational signaling perspective. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nauta, A., and Sanders, K. (2000). Interdepartmental negotiation behavior in manufacturing. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nauta, A., and Sanders, K. (2001). Causes and consequences of perceived goal differences between departments within manufacturing organizations. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 74, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D.W., and Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, T. (1992). Individual, collective and systems rationality in work groups: Dilemmas and nonmarket solutions. Rationality and Society, 3, 332–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, T. (1993). The economics of organization: The principal-agent relationship. Acta Sociologica, 36, 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organisations and organisation theory. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., and Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestion for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G., and Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raub, W., and Weesie, J. (1990). Reputation and efficiency in social interactions: An example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 626–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raub, W., and Weesie, J. (2000). The management of durable relations. In J. Weesie and W. Raub (Eds.), The management of durable relations. Theoretical models and empirical studies of households and organizations (pp. 1–32). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F.J., and Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K. (2004). Playing truant within organizations: Informal relationships, work ethics and absenteeism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., and Hoekstra, S.K. (1998). Informal networks and absenteeism within an organization. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 4, 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., and Nauta, A. (2004). Social cohesiveness and absenteeism: The relationship between characteristics of employees and short-term absenteeism. Small Group Research, 35, 724–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., Schyns, B., Koster, F., and Rotteveel, C. (2003). Het stimuleren van solidair gedrag: een kwestie van leiderschap? [Encouragement of solidary behavior: A matter of leadership?]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 16, 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., Snijders, T., and Stokman, F.N. (1998). Editorial: Effects and outcomes of informal relations within organization. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 4, 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., and Van Emmerik, IJ.H. (2004). Does modern organizations and governance threat solidarity? Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., Van Emmerik, IJ.H., and Raub, W. (2002). Nieuwe vragen voor onderzoek naar solidair gedrag binnen moderne organisaties [New research question on solidary behavior within modern organizations]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 15, 184–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K., Van Emmerik, IJ.H., and Raub, W. (in press). Solidary behavior within organizations. In J. Berger (Ed.), Yearbook Mannheim Center for Sociology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seashore, S.E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo, G. (1999). Social relations and cooperation in organisations. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 38, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. (1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W.G. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelsen Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taplin, I.M. (1995). Flexible production, rigid jobs: Lessons from the clothing industry. Work and Occupation, 22(4), 412–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (2001). Why do people rely on others? Social identity and social aspects of trust. In K.S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dierendonck, D., Le Blanc, P.W., and Van Breukelen, W. (2002). Supervisory behavior, reciprocity and subordinate absenteeism. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23, 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L. (1994). In-role and extra-role behaviours. Cross level and longitudinal effects of individual similarity to other group members. Dissertation International, 54, 4430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., and Richard, M. (1995). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Construct, redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik, IJ.H., Hermkens, P., and Sanders, K. (1998). Personeelsbeleid en rechtvaardigheidgevoelens van medewerkers. [HRM practices and feelings of justice of employees]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 11(6), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik, IJ.H., Lambooij, M., and Sanders, K. (2002). The effects of social embeddedness on job performance efforts of tenured and non-tenured professionals. Small Group Research, 33, 702–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik, IJ.H., and Sanders, K. (2004). The effects of social embeddedness on job performance of tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14, 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Yperen, N.W., Hagedoorn, M., and Geurts, S.A. (1994). Terugtrekgedrag van werknemers. Verloop en verzuim als reactie op onbillijkheid. [Withdrawal behaviour of employees]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 7, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, P.D. (1995). The ascendant organization. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.E. (1975). Market and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.E. (1996). The mechanism of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittek, R., Van Duijn, M., and Snijders, T. (2003). Frame decay, informal power, and the escalation of social control in a management team: A relational signaling perspective. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 20, 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sanders, K., Flache, A., van der Vegt, G., van de Vliert, E. (2006). Employees’ Organizational Solidarity within Modern Organizations: A Framing Perspective on the Effects of Social Embeddedness. In: Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., Buunk, B., Lindenberg, S. (eds) Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior. Critical Issues in Social Justice. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28032-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics